Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I have to inform the House that Her Majesty's Government have appointed Lieutenant-General Sir Michael Willcocks, KCB, to be Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod in succession to General Sir Edward Jones, KCB, CVO, CBE, and that he is at the Door ready to receive your Lordships' commands.
	Whereupon the House directed that he be called in. Accordingly he was called in and officiated in his place.

Tributes to General Sir Edward Jones

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I take this opportunity to thank Sir Edward for his diligent and tireless service to the House during the six years that he has served as Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod.
	The holder of the office of Black Rod has a bewildering number of duties, and I am sure that we all accept that Sir Edward has proved himself more than adept at all of them. He has performed his ceremonial duties with great style, including of course his six state openings of Parliament. Behind the scenes, Black Rod and his department are responsible for the organisation of state openings, a huge operation which he has performed with great skill and care.
	As your Lordships know, in addition, Black Rod and his team are also responsible for the organisation of all major events in this part of the Palace. I include, as I am sure your Lordships well remember, the successful recent visit of President Clinton and the celebrations to mark the centenary of the Federation of Australia. Such large operations have always been conducted with enormous skill.
	Black Rod is also responsible for regulating access to the building, and for security issues more generally. I know that we are all grateful for his substantial efforts in that regard. They have included removing hereditary Peers who had jumped on the Woolsack, and the more serious problems of racial hate mail with which he has dealt with great tact, discretion and effectiveness.
	However, I suspect that it is in the realm of accommodation that the works of Sir Edward will be most remembered and will be most permanent. The major improvements to the structure of the Palace, begun in the early 1990s, have continued apace. On a practical level, the Palace has been made more accessible to disabled people, and the installation of the parliamentary data and video network is now nearing completion. Last summer the Line of Route was opened up to the general public for the first time in many years. Those are all activities in which Black Rod was engaged most successfully.
	He has also confronted and taken up the challenge of the shortage of working space in your Lordships' House, which, quite rightly, is always a matter of intense interest. In the past few years there have been major improvements and, as Members of the House will know, still more offices will become available during the Summer Recess. We know that there is some way to go, but we should be grateful to Sir Edward for his great efforts in that area. During his time, I believe that we have turned a corner in relation to this thorny problem.
	On behalf of the entire House, I thank Sir Edward for his ceaseless work and enthusiasm in the service of the House. We will miss him and Lady Jones very much. I can especially remember their splendid Christmas parties that I hope will become part of the Black Rod tradition.
	In the past few months Sir Edward and I have had an informal personal competition as to which one of us would retire first. He has beaten me by about four weeks. I wish him every happiness in his retirement. I am sure that the whole House will join me in sending very best wishes to him and to Lady Jones.
	Finally, I welcome Sir Edward's successor, Lieutenant-General Sir Michael Willcocks. I am sure that he will fulfil the onerous duties with as much distinction as his predecessor; and I hope that he enjoys his time with us.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, on behalf of the Opposition, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for her splendid and full tribute to General Sir Edward Jones. On this side of the House, we associate ourselves fully with her remarks. However, although today we know who succeeds Sir Edward, it may be a few weeks yet before we know who will succeed the noble Baroness herself! I am ever hopeful!
	Sir Edward's term of office has been exemplary and the noble Baroness has rightly listed many of his achievements. During that time he has had the challenge of managing considerable change, such as followed the general election of 1997 when changes were made to the management of the House, and after the expulsion of the hereditary Peers. He and his team, as well as the Doorkeepers, for whom he is responsible, managed that task with few complaints.
	Sir Edward has served this House with skill, enthusiasm, distinction, and, surprisingly sometimes for a man with such a booming voice, with sensitivity. I suspect that we shall all miss his tall stature bearing down on us, as we shall all miss Lady Jones, who has played a hugely supportive role in the Palace of Westminster and beyond.
	I too welcome his successor, Lieutenant-General Sir Michael Willcocks, another distinguished soldier who takes on this burden of office. I believe it is right to say that he has a tough act to follow, but I am convinced that he will match up to all the outstanding qualities of his predecessor.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I too thank the Leader of the House for, and associate these Benches with, the tribute that she has paid to the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod. In particular, I associate with those remarks my noble friend Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, who is very sorry not to be present on this occasion.
	General Sir Edward Jones brought to his post a great contribution drawn from his own experience, first, as a distinguished military man, which I am sure taught him leadership and decision-making, and secondly, as the military representative to NATO from 1992 to 1993, where he learnt the art of diplomacy that he has used most effectively in this House.
	More recently Sir Edward has distinguished himself as a celebrity on television. I too occasionally appear on television and I am deeply envious of his wonderful clothing. Only yesterday I discovered, in an unguarded moment from Sir Edward himself, that he is capable of changing into his full resplendency in just over five minutes, an attribute that I wish I could emulate.
	All of us will miss his wise guidance and that of his splendid and marvellous wife, Lady Jones. Perhaps I can conclude this brief tribute to him by saying that the cleaning of Royal Court is one of his great achievements. It was said, famously, by Christopher Wren,
	"Se monumentum, requiris, circumspice".
	I am sure that when Sir Edward looks at the beauty of the Palace of Westminster in its clean and resplendent state he will be able to say, together with Christopher Wren, that he has a proper and lasting memorial.
	I also greatly welcome Lieutenant-General Sir Michael Willcocks as his successor. He has already distinguished himself by the excellent short parade which he was able to master so professionally and effectively. All of us on these Benches greatly look forward to working with him and wish him well in his onerous but exciting new duties.

Lord Weatherill: My Lords, in the absence of the Convenor, it is my privilege from these Benches to pay tribute to the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod. I am well aware that military gentlemen do not hold politicians in high esteem. Indeed, when I entered the House of Commons in 1964 I received a letter from my general. He said:
	"Dear Weatherill, I am astounded to be informed that an officer of the regiment is going into politics. It is a dishonest profession. I pray that you may prove to be the exception. I very much doubt it".
	Whatever Black Rod's view of politicians may have been six years ago when he first came to your Lordships' House, I wager that that is not his view today. Sir Edward Jones has been a splendid and outstanding Black Rod. Not only has he looked the part but he has also acted the part with military precision, efficiency, great style and dignity. During his time here, he and his wife, Lady Jones, have made many friends, not only among Members of your Lordships' House and, I suspect, among Members of the other place, but also among the staff, who hold him in high esteem.
	I believe that Seneca said,
	"Obedience is yielded more readily to one who commands gently".
	That epitomises the way in which Black Rod has carried out his duties to your Lordships' House. We on these Benches salute him and also Lieutenant-General Sir Michael Willcocks, whom we wish an equally successful and happy time in your Lordships' House.

The Lord Bishop of Bradford: My Lords, it is a great pleasure for me to associate my fellow bishops and myself in the warm tributes paid to Sir Edward Jones. I can assure your Lordships that when as a bishop with no political background one is introduced to your Lordships' House, it is a very daunting and unnerving experience. The kindness and helpfulness afforded by Sir Edward and his staff to many bishops is greatly appreciated. We welcome an opportunity publicly to thank him and to say how grateful we are for the help and encouragement we have been given.
	His approachability and his ability to tolerate the hesitant, to say nothing of fools, and to give the impression that he does so gladly, is something we have come greatly to appreciate. He has contributed to the courtesy and generosity shown in this House towards its newer Members.
	Sir Edward, in his role as Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, has brought great dignity to all of our proceedings and I want to emphasise that word in a society where dignity is somewhat lowly prized. His dignity has impressed and encouraged us all; he has set a great example. We wish him well.
	We also offer our very best wishes to Lieutenant-General Sir Michael Willcocks and, if I may, I should like to give him a personal welcome. As a national serviceman who served with I Battery (Bull's Troop) and then in the 2nd Regiment Royal Horse Artillery, perhaps I may say how wonderful it is to see a distinguished officer from the Royal Horse Artillery gracing your Lordships' House. I hope that it is in order for a former acting bombardier to greet a general in that way. If it is impertinent, I pray I may be forgiven.
	As bishops, we hope that Sir Michael will feel very happy here. He will find the bishops the least troublesome of all Members of your Lordships' House and the most unpredictable. We hope also that he will have a fulfilling time in office.

Organic Farming

Lord Taverne: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is the justification for their subsidising organic farming.

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the support provided for farmers undertaking conversion to organic status is in recognition of the contribution which organic farming makes to achieving the Government's aims of securing environmental benefits and orienting production to the market within the agricultural sector.

Lord Taverne: My Lords, while there is no doubt a place for organic farming to encourage diversity, and while there is some evidence from California that organically farmed apples are more tasty than other Californian apples, do the Government not agree that there is no sound evidence for saying that organic farming is more environmentally friendly than conventional farming, given its inefficient and wasteful use of land? Furthermore, is there not some evidence of greater risk to health, particularly a much higher risk from poisoning by pathogenic strains of E.coli?
	Generally, is there any justification for subsidising a form of farming which has no basis in science but which is based instead on the rather dubious ideology of Rudolf Steiner?

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, on a personal note, I ought to thank the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, for giving me the opportunity to appear at the Dispatch Box to deal with something other than a Statement on foot and mouth disease. However, after hearing his supplementary question I am not so sure.
	The important point I want to make is that while there are many and varied views about the qualities of organic food as against non-organic food, it is important to recognise that we need to pursue the objectives I listed in answering his Question--environmental stewardship and bringing agriculture closer to the market--across the whole range of agriculture and not only and solely through the mechanism of organic farming. It has environmental benefits and is rightly subsidised, and it has been generously subsidised by this Government in terms of conversion but not in terms of on-going production.

Lord Palmer: My Lords, in view of the noble Baroness's reply to that last question, can she make a serious case for subsidising the bio-fuel industry, which really does have enormous environmental benefits?

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I would expect the noble Lord to make no other comment. But it is an important issue. When, at this time, we are looking at the future of agriculture after a horrific experience across farming in this country, it is important to use opportunities not simply to recreate the previous pattern of agriculture but to look at what in the broadest sense can provide such environmental benefits. I know that the noble Lord is a passionate advocate of bio-fuels in that context.

Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, given the range of rethinking on agriculture that is now taking place, not least among those who have lost stock from foot and mouth disease, how does my noble friend think that suitable advice, including on organic farming, should play its part?

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, provisions and advisory services already exist for those contemplating conversion to organic status. It is an important, long-term decision and it needs to be a soundly based business decision. However, the noble Lord is right to say that many people who lost stock during the foot and mouth outbreak need to think carefully and obtain high-quality business advice as regards their future, whether that is in organic production or something else. Yesterday, my right honourable friend announced the provision of particularly focused business advice for those who have lost stock in the recent foot and mouth outbreak.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the population of the world is likely to multiply four-fold during our lifetime and that if the premise of organic farming is carried out throughout the world it will be grossly extravagant and wasteful of space and will result in inadequate supplies of food being available for those who require it?

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the role of organic production in this country, where there is real consumer demand for it, is an important one which the Government rightly support. I have some sympathy with the view of the noble Earl. We need to look at all possible developments in agriculture to meet the challenges of feeding a vastly increased world population in the years to come.

Baroness Nicol: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that at the moment the United Kingdom meets only 30 per cent of the demand for organic produce and that organic farmers in many of the countries which supply the other 70 per cent are more heavily subsidised than ours?

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. We supply a minority of our own market in organic production. That is one of the reasons why, in terms of sustainability, we have vastly increased support. Support for organic farming ran at just over £500,000 a year until 1997; this year we shall spend £18 million.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, does the Minister agree that despite that support people vote with their shopping baskets for organic farming and demand still far outstrips supply? Does the Minister also agree that the Bill which set targets for organic conversion was a step in the right direction? Does she welcome the comments of Commissioner Fischler that CAP reform must be speeded up to bring about the environmental benefits which, as your Lordships' House reports so clearly underline, organic farming can deliver?

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, certainly I agree with the noble Baroness so far as concerns CAP reform. But if there is such a buoyant market for organic produce the case for government subsidy is somewhat undermined.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, in the field of organic farming is it not even more crucial that the standards set throughout Europe and the world should be the same? There are different conversion rates and standards in various countries? Does the Minister agree that our farmers would be helped if the standard was based on a uniform unit and produce properly labelled so that consumers could make the correct choice?

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, there are defined European standards about organic production. The responsibility for the enforcement of organic standards in this country lies with UKROFS. It is impossible to prevent people wanting higher standards. One can ensure that everything conforms to minima, but if organic certifying bodies and other organisations wish to impose higher standards themselves they have the right to do so.

Identity Cards

Baroness Sharples: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether, following the six-month pilot study of a voluntary smart card, they have any plans to introduce such an identity card nationally.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, a number of local smart card schemes for electronic access to public services are being tested but none is a pilot for a national scheme; nor do they represent any form of national identity card. Any decision to introduce a national identity card would need to be taken in its own right. Having considered the arguments carefully, we are not persuaded of the case for doing so.

Baroness Sharples: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply which is slightly more encouraging than the response to my previous Question on this. I have been pursuing this matter since 1993, so perhaps I am getting somewhere. Can the Minister say who was consulted in the last pilot scheme on possible voluntary identity cards?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am slightly mystified by the noble Baroness's reference. I am not aware of any consultations that are currently being undertaken. I am aware that a number of local authorities are piloting smart cards and similar cards which access local services. I asked my office to make contact with the Local Government Association this morning to find out how that was progressing. I am happy to continue to advise your Lordships' House on these matters. I congratulate the noble Baroness on her persistence in regularly putting Questions on ID cards at Question Time.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there are many in this country who are bitterly opposed to a national identity card because they believe that individual freedom is already at risk and has been undermined to an unacceptable extent?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, that was one of the considerations which focused the minds of Ministers when they considered these matters, and it was certainly a matter which weighed very heavily on the minds of the previous government when they considered the case for national identity cards, including voluntary ones. That is also one of the reasons which has been particularly persuasive in this matter.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, can the Minister explain why he believes that a photo driving licence will not become a de facto ID card?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the principal reason is that the purpose of a photo driving licence is to permit a person to drive a vehicle, having passed a test. No doubt it is a useful means of identification and is often used in that way.

Child Trust Fund

The Viscount of Oxfuird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When they intend to introduce the so-called "baby bonds"; and what financial provision has been made for them.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government announced on 26th April that they would consult on two new proposals to increase saving and asset ownership: the child trust fund and the saving gateway. The exact timing and cost of these policy proposals will depend on the results of the consultation process.

The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether income that accrues under either proposal will be subject to taxation? If not, how can it be fair to tax the savings of non-taxpayers, including pensioners and children who may have been bought privatisation shares by their parents, through the non-refundable stealth tax on dividend income introduced by the Chancellor?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I thought that it would not be long before the Benches opposite moved from a debate on something which involved the transfer of money from government to people to their obsession with the transfer of money from people to government. The question of the tax status of the child trust fund and the saving gateway is one of the matters for consultation. Clearly, if there were to be tax relief for income under either or both of these measures the question would arise whether it became a regressive or progressive proposal in taxation terms. That is one of the matters which is being seriously considered.

Lord Naseby: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the expression "baby bond" is the registered trade mark of the Tunbridge Wells Equitable Friendly Society, of which I have the honour to be chairman? That is declared in the register. Is the noble Lord also aware that the primary work on this matter was done by the think tank IPPR, of which we were proud to be a co-sponsor? Is the Minister further aware that the friendly society movement, which has some 6 million members, looks forward to working with the Government to introduce the child trust fund and hopes that that movement will have a major role to play?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am particularly grateful for the last part of the noble Lord's question. I learnt only 10 minutes ago that he and his society had the prescience to register the expression "baby bond". My immediate conclusion was that they would begin to charge the Government for the use of that name. I am delighted to learn--I hope--that that is not the intention. But the main conclusion that I draw from the noble Lord's question is that we have some very valuable allies.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it would be better to divert this money into the cutting of tuition fees?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the assumption of the noble Lord is very flattering to the Government. It is our intention that 50 per cent of young people in this country should benefit from higher education, but even when we achieve that target tuition fees would apply to no more than half of that 50 per cent. The proposals announced in April of this year apply to the whole population.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, all this business about transfer of moneys this way and that does not make much sense. Is this not just a plain electoral gimmick?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if governments could not make proposals for improvements in the welfare and happiness of the people of this country, that might be a serious question. There are still plenty of opportunities for us to continue making improvements of the kind that we have suggested.

Lord Saatchi: My Lords, is it not true to say that this baby bond is a fitting epitaph for a government who have always liked the idea of treating voters as babies? Perhaps the Minister will follow me in some baby arithmetic. There are 717,000 births roughly a year in this country. At £500 per head, this baby bond will cost the Government the sum of £350 million per year. Does the Minister accept that the Government have increased tax on voters by £28 billion per year? Therefore, the sum that the Government are so generously giving back amounts to just 1¼ per cent of the extra amount they have already taken in taxes. Does not the Minister think that even babies could see that coming?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful for the preview of what will undoubtedly appear either on posters or on party election broadcasts for the Conservative Party. I am sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be glad to have forewarning of the cutting edge of Conservative Party philosophy. In particular, the remarks about babies will go down very well.
	The Conservative Front Bench and its Back-Benchers are showing the same predilection as was shown by the noble Viscount, Lord Oxfuird: that the only way to respond to a proposal to transfer money from government to the people is to change the subject. I notice that neither the Front Bench nor the Back Benches have recorded the fact that Mr Portillo said that he would not proceed with this project.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, can the noble Lord explain why the Government feel that people cannot have babies without the Government paying them to do so?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government do not feel that. They are not King Canutes. The urges which cause people to have babies will continue under any government.

Lord Blackwell: My Lords, can the Minister explain why the Government's support for the baby bond has not been matched by their support for the Opposition's proposal to fund pensions for young people? If the Government are to transfer money to individuals to try to encourage savings and self-sufficiency, would it not be more sensible to crystallise an existing liability on the state (for paying pensions) and to fund those rather than to create an additional liability on the state 18 years earlier?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I find that a remarkable question. The Government have successfully introduced stakeholder pensions and are introducing second state pensions which are valuable for young people as well as those of other ages. The Government's record in supporting pensions for people not at present receiving them is outstanding.

The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, will the Government agree that it would be more sensible if, instead of taking money away from non-taxpayers and then giving some of it back, they abolished tax on small savings altogether, as recommended by the party on this side of the House?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is about the third or fourth attempt to divert attention from the original Question to something quite different. We are aware that if the only benefit of what one noble Lord called "baby bonds" was tax relief, that would be regressive in personal taxation terms. That is why other things would have to be done, particularly in terms of the relationship with tax credits and with other forms of benefits, to ensure that the finalised proposals are not regressive but benefit the less well-off. The analysis of these matters is clear in the paper issued in April. I commend it to the noble Viscount.

Asylum Policy

Earl Russell: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the Prime Minister's article in The Times of 4th May represents government policy; and, if so, what changes they wish to make in the United Nations Convention on Refugees of 1951; and by what authority they believe these changes can be brought about.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the Prime Minister's article made it clear that the United Kingdom is taking a lead in arguing for reform, not of the terms of values or principles of the 1951 convention, but of how it operates.

Earl Russell: My Lords, may I draw the Minister's attention to a reply given by his noble friend Lady Scotland of Asthal? She said that:
	"Article 63(1) of the treaty establishing the European Community requires the Council to adopt within five years of the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam measures on asylum which are in accordance with the Geneva Convention".--[Official Report, 18/04/00; col. 560.]
	So it is enshrined in the European Treaty that asylum policy should be in accord with the 1951 convention. Does the Minister agree that revisions of the European treaties require unanimity and that, therefore, the likelihood that the Prime Minister will, even if it were desirable, achieve any significant alterations in the 1951 convention is negligible?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I cannot agree with that. The noble Lord is drawing attention to an important article which relates in part to the celebration of the 50th anniversary of the signing of the 1951 convention. As part of that article, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has instigated a programme of global consultations which draws together refugee producing countries, countries of first asylum, refugee receiving countries, academics and legal experts to discuss topics of interest to those concerned with the protection of refugees. It is in that context that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister wrote his article and also that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has made a number of important contributions to the debate about how in the future we can deal with some of the many challenges that confront the world with regard to refugees or those seeking refugee status.

Lord Waddington: My Lords, is it or is it not correct that some countries which are signatories to the convention, including some countries in Europe, and their courts do not accept that persecution by other than an agent of the state attracts the protection of the convention?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am sure that with the noble Lord's experience in these matters as a former Home Secretary he will know that it depends very much on how one defines "an agent of the state". However, the noble Lord's point is a valid one and one that bears careful consideration in a complex international legal minefield.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the Minister aware that when I attended a meeting called by the UNHCR representative in London under the Three Circles Consultation, which the Minister has mentioned, I do not recall any representative of his department being there? However, it may be that such a representative was present but did not bother to say anything. Can the Minister enlighten the House on whether a submission was made to the UNHCR in response to the invitation to the Three Circles Consultation? If so, could that be published?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, if such a submission was made to the UNHCR, I shall endeavour to enlighten people as to its contents. No doubt it is a matter of public record.

Lord Renton: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in the 50 years that have expired since the 1951 convention was agreed circumstances have changed fundamentally all over the world? There are people now who have tried to rely upon the convention in order to maintain that they are refugees but who have not been persecuted in the way that the convention described and envisaged. The convention is now being abused and it is high time that it was revised and brought up to date. Any attempt that the Prime Minister or his successor makes in order to improve matters will prevent the convention being abused by people coming to this country who have no right to rely upon it.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, no doubt the noble Lord will know much more about the times in which the convention was signed. It was certainly before my birth, but I understand that the noble Lord was very active in politics at that time. Of course the world has changed. It is a far more complex place. It is much easier and cheaper to travel globally. We have to ensure that the abiding principles of the convention and the philosophy which underpins it are properly adhered to in the quite proper application of the rule of law. That is what our Government seek to do. We judge asylum applications on that basis. We seek to help those who are rightly fleeing persecution and offer them comfort and support here. But we do it within the rule of law and in accordance with proper procedures and processes. I am sure that is how it should be.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, in the light of the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, does the Minister consider that changing the United Nations convention would be at best a long-term business and that the situation is urgent? Will the noble Lord confirm that there are twice as many asylum seekers now as there were four years ago and that three-quarters of them are refused admission on the 1951 criteria? Does he further recognise that the Government's policy of dispersal has failed on a test either of efficiency or humanity and that it is time to introduce reception centres, which we have promised to do?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am always greatly intrigued when noble Lords opposite raise the issue of reception centres. To my certain knowledge, our Government have provided for a detention centre at Oakington, but noble Lords opposite seem to forget that it is a Conservative council that has blocked the planning application for a similar centre in Kent. Conservative Members struggle to identify further and additional sites. If we were to satisfy the political wishes to which the noble Lord has given expression, we would probably need 50 similar centres, at a cost of £2 billion, for which I am not clear the Shadow Home Secretary has policy clearance. The policy is a rather mystifying one. I recall that Miss Widdecombe observed that it would take her some four or five years to incarcerate the entire asylum population, whom she would like to lock up prior to their applications for asylum being given fair consideration. It is a strange and baffling policy. I am struggling to understand how it could be easily implemented.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that locking up all asylum seekers would be in direct contravention of Article 31 of the Geneva convention, which says that those who arrive, even unlawfully, should be given freedom of movement until their position has been established? Will he also confirm that, in an attempt to avoid what would be a deeply demeaning competition to see who can be harsher to refugees, we might consider the possibility of employing some of those who are in this country, in the way that other countries do, at a time when we are recruiting from South Africa, the Philippines and elsewhere the teachers and nurses that we desperately need?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I listen carefully to what the noble Baroness says on these matters. She always raises them with great concern and with a feeling of humanity regarding the issues involved. Her interpretation and understanding are probably quite right. What we as a government have to do is a very difficult job. We have to strike the correct balance. We must treat people decently, fairly and properly when they come here seeking asylum but we must also ensure that we properly carry out our immigration and asylum legislation so that those who make unfounded claims are eventually returned.

Business of the House: Standing Orders 40 and 46

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That Standing Order 40 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be suspended until the end of the Session so far as is necessary to give Her Majesty's Government the power to arrange the order of business; and that Standing Order 46 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be suspended for the same period.--(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Criminal Justice and Police Bill

Report received.
	Clause 1 [Offences leading to penalties on the spot]:

Baroness Buscombe: moved Amendment No. 1:
	Page 3, leave out lines 32 and 33

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure formally to move this amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Buscombe: moved Amendment No. 2:
	Page 3, leave out lines 7 to 12

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, again, it gives me great pleasure formally to move this amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 17 [Closure of certain licensed premises due to disorder or disturbance]:

Lord Cope of Berkeley: moved Amendment No. 3:
	Page 9, line 33, after "of" insert "and related to"

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to move this amendment and to thank the Government and the Minister for taking on board the point that we made in Committee. If it is not already obvious to your Lordships, Amendments Nos. 3 to 7 all address the same point. As I am on my feet, I should also mention that we do not intend to move Amendments Nos. 8 or 9. They are superficially similar but actually relate to a different clause which we do not wish to pursue today. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, these amendments are before the House by common consent. We are happy to oblige. We listened carefully to what noble Lords opposite had to say about these matters. I took away the amendments and gave them careful consideration. All the amendments in the group work together. Four are consequential on the first. I hope that this will now ensure that matters are much happier when the police are deciding whether to extend a closure order. I am sure that it will make for the better order of that business. I am happy to support the amendments.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: moved Amendments Nos. 4 to 7:
	Page 9, line 36, after "of" insert "and related to"
	Page 11, line 2, after "of" insert "and related to"
	Page 11, line 47, after "of" insert "and related to"
	Page 12, line 24, after "of" insert "and related to"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 19 [Closure notices]:
	[Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 not moved.]
	Clause 42 [Police directions stopping the harassment etc of a person in his home]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 10:
	Page 34, line 6, leave out "victim" and insert "resident"

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 10, perhaps I may speak also to Amendments Nos. 11 to 16. These amendments change the terminology of the clause, renaming the person who is suffering harassment as the "resident" when previously he had been referred to as the "victim". They do not change the overall effect of the clause. That has to be plainly understood. We believe that the clause is very important. However, matters were raised in earlier debates, more particularly by noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches who were concerned about the issue. They thought that the term "victim" was pejorative. I understand the point that they made and we have now reached an understanding and agreement about the terminology that satisfies all sides of the House. The amendments which follow on from Amendment No. 10 are all consequential and are there to ensure that we have a coherent description which holds together and makes the legislation work effectively. I beg to move.

Lord McNally: My Lords, noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches welcome the Minister's move on this point. It may not change the powers in the Bill but we believe that it changes the psychology, and to a certain extent the philosophy, and as such it is welcome.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendments Nos. 11 to 16:
	Page 34, line 9, leave out "victim" and insert "resident"
	Page 34, line 10, leave out "victim" and insert "resident"
	Page 34, line 20, leave out "victim" and insert "resident"
	Page 34, line 22, leave out "victim" and insert "resident"
	Page 34, line 26, leave out "victim" and insert "resident"
	Page 34, line 27, leave out "victim" and insert "resident"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 50 [Offence of activity of using crack cocaine]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 17:
	Leave out Clause 50

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the amendment would have the effect of removing Clause 50 from the Bill. The House will recall that there was a brief period of slight chaos at the end of one of our days in Committee. An inadvertent error was made which meant that two clauses which had a similar effect were agreed. The second of the agreed clauses was defective. The amendment simply seeks to remove that defective clause. I am sure that the clause will be removed with the support of the House. We have reached clear agreement on the subject of the amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, as the Minister said, there was some confusion. The Government Benches kindly voted for our proposed Clause 50, which was intended to clamp down on crack cocaine houses. However, Clause 38 had already been passed with our agreement. As the Government consider Clause 38 to be better drafted, I do not think that it is necessary for Clause 50 to remain in the Bill. That is why I support this amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Part 2 [Information disclosure for the purposes of criminal proceedings etc]:

Lord Cope of Berkeley: moved Amendment No. 18:
	Leave out Part 2

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, Amendment No. 18 seeks to leave out Part 2 of the Bill. There was discussion in Committee and subsequently the Government have agreed to our suggestion that the issues involved in Part 2 require further consideration. The issues have proved quite controversial in various professions, including the legal profession, my own accountancy profession, and others. They were not discussed in the other place and were only briefly debated here. It is right that Part 2 should be given proper consideration over an extended period. The amendments grouped with Amendment No. 18 are consequential upon it. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am happy to be associated with these amendments. We debated this part of the Bill yesterday. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, in his usual cogent way, expressed the Opposition's view that this part of the Bill required better and more detailed evaluation. It was, he said, complicated and detailed.
	The noble Lord is not quite right in saying that Part 2 was not discussed during the consideration of the Bill in another place. I should say for the record that the clauses in Part 2 were considered in another place during the Committee stage. However, given the short amount of time available to complete the parliamentary stages of the Bill, we have jointly tabled the amendment seeking to remove Part 2 of the Bill. This will provide a period of time in which, no doubt, we can improve the quality of the legislation, if that is what is required, and perhaps undertake further consultations. If the Labour Government are re-elected, we shall consider carefully the best way to proceed with what we believe are very useful reforms.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Cope, said, Amendments Nos. 26 to 29 are consequential to Amendment No. 18, which seeks to remove Part 2 from the Bill.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, may I point out that, although these clauses were formally taken by the Commons Committee, they were not discussed because the guillotine had already fallen?

Lord McNally: My Lords, we on these Benches support this deletion. We do so because we are mightily convinced by the persuasive arguments deployed by both Front Benches about the need for further consideration. We agree that these issues are controversial, that there has been inadequate discussion, and that there is a shortness of parliamentary time. As we go further through the Report stage, we hope that both Front Benches will be persuaded by similar arguments which are not restricted to the legal and accountancy professions.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 70 [Meaning of "legal privilege"]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 19:
	Page 62, line 1, leave out subsection (9)

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, this group of amendments refers to the Homes Bill. I understand that the Government are not proceeding with that Bill. It is therefore correct to delete from this Bill references to the Homes Bill before we proceed further today. The other amendments in the group are consequential upon Amendment No. 19.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendments Nos. 20 and 21:
	Page 62, line 14, at insert "or"
	Page 62, line 16, leave out from "(c.36)" to end of line 17
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 71 [General interpretation of Part 3]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 22:
	Page 64, leave out lines 23 and 24
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 87 [Restriction on use and destruction of fingerprints and samples]:

Lord McNally: moved Amendment No. 23:
	Leave out Clause 87

Lord McNally: My Lords, as I said, I was mightily impressed by the arguments deployed for leaving out Part 2 of the Bill. We are now talking about the two clauses in the Bill which refer to DNA. I ask your Lordships to read the debate that took place in the House last night on this issue. It was a model of this House at its best, with powerful speeches made from the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat Benches by noble Lords with considerable experience in this area. I do not intend to repeat in detail those arguments.
	Our reasons for seeking the deletion of Clauses 87 and 88 are precisely the ones that have just been deployed for the removal of Part 2. When the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General comes to respond, noble Lords should remember that if the Prime Minister could have achieved his heart's desire and held the general election on 3rd May, this legislation would not have stood a prayer of going through the House. Therefore, the idea that this is some kind of urgent "must have" legislation does not stand up to scrutiny.
	Certainly, this very important step forward has been carried through with inadequate parliamentary scrutiny. As has been referred to on a number of occasions from all sides of the House, we are dealing with new technologies and new powers. We on these Benches are aware that it is very easy to portray any opposition to a request from authorities for new powers as somehow siding with criminals against the forces of law and order.
	However, there is another side to the argument. Over the past 10 years we have experienced what I would describe as a law and order arms race between the Conservative and Labour Front Benches. It is probably the final epitaph of Jack Straw's stewardship that during his period as shadow Home Secretary and as Home Secretary he has never been successfully outflanked to the right by his Conservative opposite number. However, it means that when both Front Benches play the populist card an extra responsibility rests on Parliament, and particularly on this House, not to be intimidated by such threats as, "How are you going to explain this to the parents of a raped child?" and other emotive cards that are played.
	I had never heard anyone deliver threats in such gentle and mellifluous tones as the Attorney-General did in the debate last night. On my way home at about midnight--the time when one feels most sinister--I suddenly thought that it was exactly the technique of the late lamented Donald Pleasence, who played the character of Bloefeld, one of the most sinister villains in the James Bond series. I appreciate the technique; however, I ask colleagues, particularly on the Conservative and Labour Benches, to think hard about where our duty lies at this particular time.
	We believe that the civil liberties aspects of this issue have not been fully debated. In regard to those that were debated fully in this House last night, many of the concerns about this measure were expressed with great power on all sides of the House. Therefore, we are right to ask the Government even at this late stage not to abandon these powers if they genuinely believe that they are necessary, but to give adequate time for a proper public debate about the issues involved and for proper study by experts and others of the implications. Then, in a proper way at a proper time, Parliament can make the decision as to whether the authorities should have these powers.
	We have fallen into a habit over the past few years of accepting Home Office legislation "on the bounce". We saw an example in the terrorism Bill that followed the Omagh bombing. The Home Office slipped in a whole section that had been waiting on a shelf and was not in any sense emergency legislation. There is always a demand for urgency on the part of the authorities and the implied threat: "If you are against us, you must be on the side of the bad guys". That is not the whole picture. Parliament has wider responsibilities--not least to defend the broader civil liberties of the citizen.
	We do not oppose the detail of these clauses. We merely ask for time for them to be properly considered. The best approach would be, as with Part 2, to drop these two clauses from the Bill. Then, if the Government have confidence in what they want to do, a successor government can bring them back in the new Parliament. I beg to move.

Lord Renton: My Lords, this is the first occasion in my 55 years in Parliament on which I have attended a Report stage of a Bill that affects law and order and the liberty of the subject, the Committee stage having ended only at a late hour the night before. It is also the first occasion on which I have heard a Liberal Democrat Peer, whom I greatly respect, make what might be described as a Third Reading speech in the middle of the Report stage--although his remarks were relevant not only to these amendments but to the Bill as a whole.
	I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord McNally, in his implied criticism of my noble friends on the Front Bench. They have shown great discretion, even when they have had entirely reasonable doubts about some of the clauses in this new and far-reaching Bill. I hope that on further reflection the noble Lord, Lord McNally, will realise the valuable part that my noble friends have played.
	That said, I welcome the Government's surrender of some of the controversial clauses, and in particular of Part 2. In the circumstances in which we now find ourselves, it was a necessary and wise step for them to take. However, a good deal of the remaining provision is controversial and is the subject of further amendments. I shall make no further comment at this time. I hope that I may be forgiven for making what is virtually another Third Reading speech at this early stage.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I wish to add little to what my noble friend Lord McNally said so cogently--because it was all said, not least by me, last night. There is one point to which my noble friend did not refer and which is highly germane; namely the chaotic state of the national DNA database. We cannot look at the amendment before us without realising that the police, in an audit of the national DNA database last July, found that over 50,000 samples had been stored illegally. To those of us on these Benches, it seems bizarre to say the least that the Government should be considering the proposals in Clauses 85 and 86 against that backdrop. As I say, I propose to confine my remarks to that point in support of my noble friend Lord McNally.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, one never comes to this House without learning something. This afternoon we have learnt that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, feels sinister at midnight. I take it that his classical education is coming out--"sinister" comes from the Latin for "left".
	These clauses are not a reaction to an event such as a bombing--as the noble Lord rightly pointed out, we saw such a reaction following the Omagh bombing and on other occasions. On the contrary, they are a more long-term reaction to changes in scientific knowledge and hence of the techniques that have become available.
	We had an interesting debate on the matter last night. I shall not repeat the points I made then, save to say that I do not believe that we are collectively winning the war against crime. DNA evidence--and the handling of fingerprint evidence--is an extremely valuable investigatory tool; it also potentially provides high-quality evidence in court cases. In these circumstances I believe it right that these clauses should remain in the Bill.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, for his remarks. This provision is not a short-term remedy; nor has it been proposed without consultation. As your Lordships will remember, as long ago as July 1999, the Home Office published a consultation document, Proposals for Revising Legislative Measures on Fingerprints, Footprints and DNA Samples. That document formed the basis for some of the measures contained in the Bill. That was a fair while ago, and it is not right to assume or to mis-remember what happened in another place. The provisions relating to fingerprints and DNA samples were debated at length at all stages, including in Committee, in the Commons. However, I listened carefully to what was said in the debate last night. Some points were plainly of deep concern to those who made them. In saying that, I do not take away from the concerns; nor do I accept that the concerns are necessarily valid. In respect of the database, to which the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, referred, I said yesterday in answer to him and my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws that I was able to give a commitment to a long-term review of improving the security and efficiency of the database.
	However, I know that there are concerns among your Lordships that are not partisan; and, indeed, not entirely complimentary, although I gratefully received the bouquet from the noble Lord, Lord McNally. I always wanted to be an actor, and I believe that Donald Pleasence was rather a good one. I should like to spend a few moments on the issue because we need to remember what these clauses are talking about. They are talking about the retention of all fingerprints and samples taken on suspicion of involvement in a criminal offence. The purposes for which they can then be used--it is worth looking at the text of the Bill--are specifically restricted: the prevention and detection of crime, the investigation of an offence and the conduct of a prosecution. They cannot lawfully be used for any more devious purposes. I almost said "sinister"; but perhaps I should use "devious" as the adjective. They can be used only to prove or disprove involvement in crime.
	We are not seeking to extend the powers to take fingerprints or other samples; we are seeking only to retain those that have been lawfully taken. These are extremely important aspects. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, is right to point out that one is capable of generating by these modern procedures evidence of extremely high "objective" quality. I do not apologise for using that word again. It is much more potentially capable of being reliable, objective evidence than, for example, the eye-witness identification made by the honest, apparently trustworthy and reliable witness who, although honest and apparently trustworthy, experience has commonly shown us can be plainly mistaken.
	The proposed changes about retention were made necessary as a result of the decisions of the Court of Appeal Criminal Division in the cases of the Crown against Weir and the Crown against B, under the Attorney-General's reference No. 3/199. Those cases put into stark focus--I do not apologise for those words because they are a moderate description of what occurred--whether or not our law was coherent, comprehensible or justifiable on the retention of samples in those cases. I should remind noble Lords who did not have the benefit of being present in Committee last night, or the opportunity fully to read the Hansard report of the proceedings, that in those cases there was compelling, objective evidence of, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, "high quality" that linked one defendant to a rape and a second defendant to a murder. If that is to be called "playing the populist card", I believe that to be fundamentally mistaken as a description.
	It was originally held that that evidence of high objective scientific quality, which was capable of being extremely reliable, had to be excluded from the jury. Why? It was because both defendants, having given their original DNA samples, had either been acquitted or not proceeded against. The Court of Appeal ruled that material to be not admissible. If it is a sensible principle of criminal jurisprudence--I contend that it is--that cogent, probative evidence of high quality ought to be admitted, then, with great respect, those decisions caused some surprise.
	The subsequent decision of the House of Lords overturned the ruling of the Court of Appeal and, therefore, the contention made by and on behalf of the Attorney-General succeeded. The House of Lords ruled that where a DNA sample fell to be destroyed because of Section 64 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 but had not been, it did not make evidence obtained as a failure to comply with that prohibition inadmissible. The Joint Committee on Human Rights, which I know is only just starting what I hope will be extremely important and influential work, commented:
	"This has the curious result"--
	understatement is always a pleasure to study--
	"that the police are under a legal duty to destroy material, but are able to use it as evidence if they breach their duty by keeping it".
	The Bill's proposals in these two linked clauses seek to put right that anomaly.
	The ruling of the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords allows the court a discretion to use the information, but that only affects cases where by chance, inadvertence or inefficiency the samples have been kept. I am most grateful for the support received from the Opposition Front Bench in this respect. The Government's view is that the evidence should not be discarded and that the police should be able to make use of that valuable and objective evidence. In my view, once it is acceptable that prints and samples should be able to be retained and properly used in the defence of individual liberty, which has been attacked by criminals if they are proved to be such, it is a proportionate use of the power of society to enforce the protection of the individuals who compose it.
	A further worry expressed last night related to the retention of samples that were given voluntarily. Being an optimistic creature, I shall say this now for the last time: the samples can be retained only if there is written consent to the retention given by the person providing the sample. We believe that these are legitimate weapons in the structured armoury of a civil state response. I recognise that the concerns expressed were not raised on the basis of party point scoring; indeed, I do not believe that anyone on either side thought that any of us was indulging in that last night.
	Obviously, I have given a good deal of thought to the expression of view that was encapsulated quite briefly and economically by the noble Lords, Lord McNally and Lord Phillips. I hope that they will accept the following suggestion as being constructive. Bearing in mind the concerns expressed, I believe that I ought to be able to give a commitment--I have authority to do so--that this whole matter will be subject to a review when five years' experience has been had. I am able to give that commitment. I am not pretending that everything about the present state of the law is perfect. However, what I do assert without any doubt at all in my mind is that we must get the law right in this particular context.
	I made my commitment to the long-term review of the database in what I accept was a less specific form to the noble Baroness. I believe that both she and the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, accepted it as being a constructive approach. This commitment is deliberately more focused because I listened carefully to what noble Lords said. I hope that they will recognise that I am not playing any sort of card. I am trying to meet legitimate concerns that were conscientiously expressed and to balance and marry those with the views advanced by myself on behalf of the Government and by the noble Lord, Cope of Berkeley, on behalf of the Opposition Front Bench.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Before the Minister concludes and my noble friend replies, I have two questions. First, can a government Minister make a commitment of this sort that is binding on a successor government? Secondly, can the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General give me any indication as to whether such a review would have an element of independence in it?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, obviously I cannot bind a successor government, if the noble Lord's ignoble hypothesis were ever to come about. However, I hope that I have expressed our commitment to the measure as firmly as possible. Of course, if one of two alternative parties were in power--I look for a smile from the noble Lords, Lord McNally and Lord Phillips--they would decide the matter. I have made my stance perfectly plain. I believe that the consultation ought to be as widely based as possible. I do not think that your Lordships can expect me to be more specific than that. I hope that I have been as helpful as I possibly can.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I say on behalf of my party that a review on the time-scale that has been mentioned is essential.

Lord McNally: My Lords, I welcome the extremely constructive suggestion of the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General. Yesterday when we discussed the need to strike a balance between civil liberties and the needs of victims of crime the noble and learned Lord said,
	"I recognise the civil liberties implications here, in the balance I believe that their [the victims'] needs come rather higher".--[Official Report, 8/5/01; col. 2082.]
	The debate has been conducted honourably by noble Lords on all sides of the House. However, a division of opinion remains. The concern over civil liberties remains. We welcome the review that has been suggested. We shall certainly return to the matter in the new Parliament when legislation is introduced following the publication of the Auld committee's report. Therefore, this is not the end of the matter. Nevertheless as we are in the peculiar position of having to undertake a truncated review of this legislation, we wish to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 23) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 40; Not-Contents, 200.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	Clause 88 [Provision for Northern Ireland corresponding to s.87]:
	[Amendment No. 24 not moved.]
	Clause 131 [Inferences in police conduct proceedings]:

Lord Cope of Berkeley: moved Amendment No. 25:
	Leave out Clause 131

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, this matter was discussed last night at a quite late hour.

Baroness David: My Lords, does the noble Lord want to leave out Clause 131? Is it not Clause 126? I beg your Lordships' pardon. I am told that there is new numbering.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, it was Clause 126 in the Bill used in Committee yesterday. However, in the Bill as amended it becomes Clause 131. It is exactly the same clause. They are renumbered because we have inserted some additional clauses. The speed with which we have had to consider these issues has made the position somewhat confusing. That is the explanation.
	The matter was discussed late last night. That was the first time this proposition had been discussed in either House of Parliament. The proposition is that in police disciplinary proceedings an inference should be able to be drawn from silence on a specific matter. It is a familiar argument in connection with the criminal law. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, stated last night that when the original consultations on the proposal took place the police staff associations were content with the proposal but that they had had second thoughts since. That is right. I am told that the original consultation was on the basis that a clause of this character was to be introduced, but that the standard of proof required should be the criminal standard of "beyond reasonable doubt". The standard now in police disciplinary proceedings is "the balance of probability". That has led the Police Federation and ourselves to oppose the insertion of this clause.
	I made the point last night--I shall not labour it again today--that our police are a highly supervised body answerable not only to the law but to the complaints commission, their authority, and so on. If a policeman does something wrong, he finds himself facing criminal charges, if justified, or disciplinary proceedings, or both. We should be extremely careful about placing through this clause an additional burden on policemen in trouble, in particular when we have discussed the issue so little. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, in our view this clause removes an anomaly which would bring the regulations on police conduct into line with those in criminal proceedings where the new style of caution was introduced in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.
	It is perhaps worth reciting some history on the matter since it is an issue which has been around for a number of years. The Home Affairs Select Committee, in its report in March 1998 on police disciplinary and complaints procedures, proposed this change (at paragraph 109 of Volume 1 of the report of the proceedings of the committee on 15th January 1998) on the basis that it would go some way towards addressing quite proper concerns over the use of "no comment" interviews in police disciplinary investigations.
	At present, if it is decided to instigate proceedings against an officer for a possible breach of the discipline code, now called the conduct code, the accused officer will be notified and cautioned along the lines of the traditional criminal caution. This stated:
	"You do not have to say anything unless you wish to do so, but anything you do say may be given in evidence".
	The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 modified this caution and the right to silence in an important way in that although it would be open to a defendant to say nothing, adverse inferences could be drawn where the defendant chose to do so in certain circumstances. This change was not accompanied by an equivalent change in the caution in disciplinary proceedings because it was originally thought that Section 50 of the Police Act 1996 would enable this change to be made by regulations. It was subsequently decided that the change should be made by primary legislation.
	The modified caution states:
	"You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you say may be given in evidence".
	The proposal to change the caution was agreed by all members of the Home Affairs Select Committee and was discussed from 1998 onwards in the Police Personnel Procedures Working Group which is a working group of the Police Advisory Board. There was universal agreement from all the police staff associations, including the Police Federation, the Police Complaints Authority, the Association of Police Authorities and Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary.
	The Police Federation now appears to have changed its stance. It had previously said that a police officer should be in no better and no worse a position than any other member of the public who is being investigated. The Police Superintendents' Association also believed that it was wrong to allow an unfettered right of silence to police officers subject to a disciplinary inquiry. Paragraph 4.1 of the report on the right of silence said:
	"In view of the recent change to the general criminal law, we believe it is wrong that police officers who are subject to a disciplinary inquiry have an unfettered right of silence".
	Let us consider what happens in other uniformed services. The Military Police use the same wording as in the modified caution. In fire service disciplinary proceedings, when a member of a fire brigade is given the opportunity to explain his conduct to an investigating officer he is informed that he is not obliged to say anything concerning the matter and he is warned that any explanation he makes may be used in subsequent disciplinary proceedings. The Prison Service does not use cautions, but a form of written words when staff are investigated and when they are charged.
	The police force is a vital public service in which the highest standards of conduct and behaviour are necessary to maintain public confidence. If a police officer's conduct is called into question and he or she refuses point blank to explain, is it not reasonable to be allowed to draw inferences from that silence?
	We are seeking the implementation of what was agreed three years ago. In other fields of employment, inferences can be drawn from silence in disciplinary proceedings. In this day and age, we believe that it is right that the police disciplinary proceedings should reflect best practice elsewhere.
	Two lines of argument were advanced in the clause stand part debate in yesterday's Committee stage. One was that not enough detailed consideration had been given. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, used the phrase "on the bounce"--a phrase that he has repeated today. The other argument was that the difference between criminal conduct and misconduct was important and it was felt that the police were one of the most supervised occupations in the country, as the noble Lord, Lord Cope, said again this afternoon.
	I do not find either argument compelling. No strong or powerful argument has been made to exempt the police from a practice that is becoming more widespread in disciplinary proceedings and is the standard in criminal proceedings. Concern was expressed that we should be extremely careful about the conduct of police disciplinary proceedings. In my experience, police disciplinary investigations and proceedings accord to the highest standards and are properly conducted and thoroughly carried out.
	My understanding is that the former Home Secretary, Michael Howard, supported the change back in 1994. In 1996, Conservatives in government clearly anticipated that it would be put into effect by regulation. The Conservatives supported the move as recently as 1998, when the Home Affairs Committee report was supported by all parties. I find it most strange that they have changed their position. I am not convinced by the arguments that have been put forward. We have demonstrated our care and concern over the issue. We have consulted carefully through the proper formal arrangements. There has historically been widespread agreement and support for the change. That is why it was put into the Bill.
	I hope that the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats will not press the amendment.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, the Minister and I have summarised the arguments that we made last night. It is time to seek the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 25) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 140; Not-Contents, 116.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
	Clause 144 [Short title, commencement and extent]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendments Nos. 26 to 29:
	Page 114, line 33, after "section," insert "and".
	Page 114, line 33, leave out "Part 2 of this Act and sections".
	Page 115, line 1, leave out "Part 2 of this Act and section 90 come" and insert "Section 90 comes".
	Page 115, leave out line 6.
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Schedule 1 [Extension of existing disclosure powers]:

Lord Cope of Berkeley: moved Amendment No. 30:
	Leave out Schedule 1.
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Schedule 2 [Powers of seizure]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 31:
	Page 130, leave out lines 4 to 6.
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Then, Standing Order No. 46 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of this day), Bill read a third time.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
	Moved, That the Bill do now pass.--(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I rise briefly to take up a point which arose 10 minutes ago when I asked the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General whether one could expect the review of the DNA arrangements, which he offered to the House to take place after five years, to be undertaken by an independent person. In giving his answer to that and to another question which I raised, I do not believe that he dealt with that particular point. I should be most grateful if he would do so.

Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps I may say a brief word. In spite of the concessions wisely made by the Government and their acceptance of the various opposition amendments which they originally opposed, I believe that it is regrettable that so little time has been spent by your Lordships in considering this lengthy Bill, which runs to roughly 170 pages. In view of my own experience, I regret to say that I fear that, in the course of time, the courts will throw doubts upon the wording and effect of some parts of the Bill. Therefore, I believe that further consideration of it should not wait until five years have passed. It may well be that thought upon it will need to be given sooner than that and that it would be much wiser to hold a review within two years.

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, perhaps I may make a point in relation to the amendment to which I put my name today--Amendment No. 25 concerning Clause 131. I had, in fact, intended to put my name to an amendment changing Clause 136. In Committee late last night, I spoke to an amendment on Clause 131. Overnight, a renumbering took place. I make this statement for the information of the House.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I want to make a point of amplification which the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, indicated to me that he wished to have. I am grateful to him for that. Whoever carries out the review will be a person of perceived and actual independence.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am most grateful.
	On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill

Report received.
	Clause 1 [Application of Part 5 of the Care Standards Act 2000]:

Lord Williams of Mostyn: moved Amendment No. 1:
	Page 1, line 28, leave out subsection (3) and insert--
	"(3) For subsection (6) substitute--
	"(6) Regulations may provide for the references to a child in subsection (1) to include references to a person (including a child) who was at any time (including a time before the commencement of this Part)--
	(a) a child ordinarily resident in Wales;
	(b) a child to or in respect of whom services were provided in Wales by, or on behalf of or under arrangements with, a person mentioned in Schedule 2B; or
	(c) a child to or in respect of whom regulated children's services in Wales were provided.""

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, grouped with this amendment are Amendments Nos. 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8. If it is convenient, I shall speak to all of them.
	Amendment No. 1 is a technical amendment. It will ensure that the commissioner will be able to exercise his jurisdiction in circumstances involving a child who has died. Having re-examined the provisions in Clause 1, there may be some doubt about the commissioner's jurisdiction in those sad circumstances. We have had discussions on the matter and re-examined the provisions.
	Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 are technical amendments, which will ensure that the commissioner will be able to review the exercise of Assembly functions and those of other bodies that are listed in the Bill in the event that they may have delegated the exercise of functions to other persons. For instance, the Assembly delegates its duties to provide careers advice to the Careers Service. The provisions may relate to one or two other bodies. This is a prudent pair of technical amendments, which will remove any doubt about the commissioner's powers.
	Amendment No. 5 will empower the commissioner to consider and to make representations to the Assembly about any matter affecting the rights or welfare of children in Wales. We had an interesting discussion on that matter in Committee. Noble Lords on all sides--Liberal Democrat, Conservative and Plaid Cymru--were eager for such a provision to be included in the Bill. I said on an earlier occasion that we would think about the matter carefully, and I promised to bring forward an amendment.
	Amendment No. 5 means that the commissioner will have a formal role. I know from discussions with noble Lords on all sides, for which I am very grateful, that this will be a welcome improvement to the Bill, and I need not detain the House further on it.
	Amendment No. 7 relates to the new power of consideration and representation. As is well known, we believe that the commissioner's main field of jurisdiction should be in respect of bodies that have functions within the Assembly's devolved fields of responsibility. That is why the amendment is necessary.
	Amendment No. 8 will replace the phrase, "county borough" with the phrase, "county borough council or community" council. The amendment virtually speaks for itself. I hope that noble Lords agree that it is appropriate to add community councils in Wales to the list of bodies that are subject to review by the commissioner under Clause 3. I beg to move.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General for speaking to this group of amendments. Amendment No. 1 is a welcome clarification and amplification of the scope of the Care Standards Act 2000 and of the role of the children's commissioner. The Attorney-General explained the element of retrospection in the amendment. That is in the Bill's original wording and the Care Standards Act. We have now had three versions of subsection (6)--the Government have clearly had a wrestling match with themselves. There is no denying the fact that the latest amendment appears to be an improvement.
	Amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 8 are basically tidying-up amendments. Amendment No. 5 is the amendment of real significance, and I am grateful to the Attorney-General for his exposition of it. It will give the commissioner formal power to,
	"make representations to the Assembly about, any matter affecting the rights or welfare of children in Wales".
	That gives him plenty of scope and we welcome this development. We are grateful to the Attorney-General for his acknowledgement of our contribution to this advance in the Government's thinking.
	The commissioner can make representations only to the Assembly, not directly to another department of state. If the matter that concerns him is outside the Assembly's sphere of responsibility, he will not, as I understand it, be debarred from making the representation. The onus for taking the representation further passes from the commissioner to the Assembly itself. The commissioner will obviously report such representations in his annual report, which could give rise to questions about what happened to them.
	If I understand proposed new subsection (2)(b) correctly in the context of Section 74 of the Care Standards Act, the commissioner cannot examine cases of particular children outside the devolved spheres of government or report on them and he cannot require information, explanation or other assistance from persons outside the devolved areas from, for example, a Home Office institution or the Ministry of Defence. One can see the reasoning behind that and the need for a consistent approach. I am bound to say that one of the problems with having been in government for as long as I was is that one always sees the government's point of view and the benefits of provisions that are neat and tidy and that fit reality to itself, rather than the other way round. However, the Government have undoubtedly moved in this regard, and we are grateful. We wish that they had moved further, but there we are.
	As I understand this rather complex amendment, the commissioner may be involved in proceedings arising from a review of the effect on children of the exercise of any function of the Assembly or by any of the regulated bodies that are contained in Schedule 2A. Proceedings may also arise in connection with services relating to children that are provided by the bodies that are listed in Schedule 2B or by regulated services. The commissioner is closely confined to the devolved areas in this regard. The last part of the amendment makes it clear that his general power to make representations that may arise in relation to non-devolved areas is excluded from the area of proceedings.
	I hope that the Attorney-General will confirm that my understanding of the amendments is correct. As I said, we welcome them and thank him for the grace with which he introduced them. He did so in response to representations from all parties. We wish that he had been able to go further but we are grateful for the progress that has been made.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: I, too, thank the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General for the clarifications that are contained in Amendments Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 8. I shall say no more about them.
	I very much welcome the additional power of consideration and representation in Amendment No. 5. Although we had initially thought in terms of the commissioner having a right to make representations to a Westminster Minister, on reflection I consider that it enhances the importance of the Assembly for the commissioner to make his representations directly to the Assembly and for the Assembly then to consider whether it wishes to carry those representations forward to a specific Minister. That is a good chain of responsibility and accountability and an improvement on the way in which we were moving initially.

Baroness Young: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord a question on Amendment No. 5, which introduces the,
	"Additional power of consideration and representation".
	The amendment says,
	"any matter affecting the rights or welfare of children in Wales".
	I feel that that makes the provision very wide in scope. We are not now talking about children who may be in care or children who come before the courts. As far as I can see, the provision relates to,
	"the rights or welfare of children in Wales",
	presumably from families who are conducting themselves as families privately do conduct themselves.
	Can the Minister give instances of the kind of situation when he thinks the commissioner may consider such representations about the rights and welfare of children in Wales? What does he have in mind? The phrase suggests an extremely wide power, and a power to interfere with private family arrangements. It is difficult to believe that that is the intention and it would be helpful to have clarification.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, first, I should perhaps say how grateful I am for the generous remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. Secondly, I can say to the noble Baroness that there is no power here to interfere with private family relationships. Amendment No. 5 is a response to questions raised on all sides in our various discussions as to what the role of the commissioner is. The subsection to which the noble Baroness referred says that the commissioner may consider and make representations to the Assembly.
	I return to the point of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. This commissioner is a creature--I do not say that in any derogatory sense; I say it in a sense of commendation--of the Assembly, bearing in mind that this is the first legislation that has arisen since the devolved Assembly was set up. He can make representations to the Assembly. They may involve matters of how social services deal with children; they may involve matters of how the police deal with children. It is right to give the commissioner a wide remit and that is what we expect the commissioner to do.
	Obviously, if representations are made to the commissioner to consider matters which he feels are disproportionate or frivolous, he has a discretion not to take the matter further. When he has looked into matters, he has the ability to make representations to the Assembly. After all, the commissioner is intended to be the champion and protector of the rights of children whose rights and welfare, we all agree following the report of Sir Ronald, were previously unheard and unheeded. Therefore this is a perfectly appropriate subsection. It does not give the commissioner power to interfere with individual family arrangements, whatever they may be.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 2 [Principal aim of the Commissioner]:

Baroness Young: moved Amendment No. 2:
	Page 2, line 14, at end insert--
	"(2) In exercising his functions, the Commissioner shall have particular regard to the rights and responsibilities of any parents or guardians of children to whom this Part applies.""

Baroness Young: My Lords, in proposing this amendment I return to the amendment I moved in Committee which had support from all parts of the Chamber. On re-reading the debate I sense a strong feeling among Members that somewhere on the face of the Bill the rights and responsibilities of parents or guardians should be included.
	I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams, for our discussion earlier today about these matters and for his letter setting out in some detail the Government's view. As I understand it, both from his letter and from what he said this morning, there is no difference in principle between what the Government would like to see and what my amendment proposes. All that divides us is that I should like to see it on the face of the Bill and the Government feel that it is implicit in the Bill and therefore that my amendment is unnecessary.
	I am not at all sure that my amendment is unnecessary. I am bound to say, even at this late stage, how disappointed I am that following our debate on 3rd April, when there was a great opportunity to look at this matter, it has been left to the last gasp and a time when it is not possible to amend the Bill. I therefore place on record my deep disappointment about the turn of events.
	It is an important issue of principle that somewhere parents should be mentioned on the face of the Bill. I recognise--the noble and learned Lord said so and it is in the Bill--that the Bill is designed to help children, particularly children who suffered so much, as Sir Ronald Waterhouse said in his report. But children do not exist on their own; they are part of families. Many issues which involve children also involve parents. There is a danger when we have an Assembly which envisages the commissioner as having not only an investigative function, but also an advocacy function. It is particularly worrying if one considers the underlying child's rights agenda which seeks to promote the new doctrine of the autonomous child.
	That agenda maintains that families are likely to fail children and that the solution to the problem is to free children from their families and give them adult rights. We hear a lot about freedom of expression, freedom of religion, the right to association and the right to privacy. Those rights are safeguarded largely, if not primarily, by the state. If the state is to fulfil that role, then it must actively monitor parents' treatment of their children and participate in educating and providing for them.
	We are already seeing pressure for that type of intervention with, for example, the Children are Unbeatable campaign. There is a great danger of the increasing marginalisation of parents in issues with which I have come to be very familiar such as sexual health education, provision of contraceptive advice, abortion advice and, most recently, the morning-after pill. In all those issues parents are being marginalised.
	These are serious issues and it is a matter of deep regret that we have not had the time to consider them thoroughly and properly. What the role of parents is seen to be will be a matter of great importance when further Bills of this nature come before the House. If we believe, as I do, that the most important thing is to sustain parents and children together in families--this at a time of the break-up of families and a weakening of the whole of the fabric of society from which, generally, children do not benefit--then we need to recognise that there is an important role for parents. There should be something in that regard on the face of the Bill.
	I deeply regret the position in which we find ourselves. I shall not press the amendment today. I accept that the Bill should go through. It is what the House wishes, what the Welsh Assembly wishes and what everybody else wishes. But we may well come to regret in the future that something was not said on the face of the Bill about parents. I hope, even at this late stage, that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams, will go as far as he can to give the kind of assurances that I and, I believe, many who think hard about these problems, would like to see. I beg to move.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I support the sentiments expressed so well by my noble friend in her amendment which we invite the Government to accept. They have nothing to lose by so doing and much to gain.
	Amendment No. 2 is an innocuous amendment in the sense that it simply requires the commissioner to have regard to the rights and responsibilities of parents as he exercises his functions. "Having regard to", in layman's terms, simply means giving consideration to and being mindful of parents' parental rights and responsibilities. The amendment does not give the commissioner any more specific duties than that. He is not required to define, safeguard or promote such rights either in general or in particular. But it is an important amendment in our view because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, acknowledged in Committee, the rights and welfare of children cannot be properly safeguarded and promoted in limbo without reference to their parents or guardians. That was confirmed and amplified by the noble and learned Lord in a letter to my noble friend Lady Young. I certainly hope that the noble and learned Lord will read relevant sections of his letter into his reply to this debate so that it is on the record.
	The underlying argument was that as consideration of parents was implicit in the definition of the commissioner's principal aim, there was no need to put my noble friend's amendment on the face of the Bill. That argument can be stood on its head. My noble friend's amendment would make explicit and crystal clear what was expected of the commissioner in that context.
	More generally, the noble and learned Lord knows well the inspirational source of my noble friend's amendment. It is a justified concern for the family and its future at a time when that most basic of all human institutions for the care and upbringing of children appears to be losing value and esteem in our society. While it is acknowledged that circumstances sadly arise when children may have to be taken out of their parents' care in their own best interests, that should never occur without the fullest possible consideration being given to the character and reputation of the parents as parents and all the circumstances in which they are bringing up their children. Surely, I am right in believing that a court of law would not act otherwise. It would take the views of the parents and guardians into account.
	The Children's Commissioner for Wales, in fulfilling his principal aim of safeguarding and promoting the rights and welfare of children should have regard to no more and no less the rights and responsibilities of the parents. That seems axiomatic to me and the sine qua non in such matters. But it is also precautionary. The state, bodies and persons that stand in loco parentis do not always know best. They are fallible, as we know to our dismay. I know that the noble and learned Lord understands our concerns and I hope that he can be as helpful as possible in the time-constrained circumstances in which we find ourselves. As my noble friend said, we wish this Bill to reach the statute book, imperfect though it may be.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I believe that all sides of the House support the concept of the family and the proposition that children are best brought up within a loving relationship which the family provides. Listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, I felt that she sees the commissioner as a person who may champion children's rights against those of the parents. I do not believe that that is the thinking behind the Bill at all; rather it is that from time to time children find themselves vulnerable for one reason or another. That may follow the break-up of the marriage or occur as a consequence of the child having been brought up in a one-parent family and so forth. It may be that such children are taken into care.
	The commissioner's purpose is not to remove a child from its parents or to interfere in the relationship between them; it is to stand up for the child in a situation where the family has broken down for one reason or another and the child is in a vulnerable position. It may well be that it is part of the commissioner's function to try to strengthen the relationship between the children and parents. I have read what was said in another place by Mr Edward Leigh. I fear that the view of the Children's Commissioner is distorted and that he is portrayed as being someone who takes an adversarial position to the family and parents. I do not believe that that is the case. It certainly does not emerge from the debates in the National Assembly. I am sure that the commissioner will not see his responsibilities in that way.

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for sending me a copy of his letter to the noble Baroness, Lady Young. Having read it, like the noble Baroness, I am still not happy. Perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord a question. If he were to accept the noble Baroness's amendment, would it have any deleterious effect on the Bill as a whole? I cannot see that it would. I am still extremely concerned about this matter because I have long felt that sometimes there is too much readiness on the part of local authorities and social workers to take children into care without perhaps always considering what is in their best interests. For a long time I have thought that it was probably better for children to be brought up even in quite a bad home rather than be taken into care. Nothing that has happened in the past 10 to 15 years has made me change that view.

Lord Hooson: My Lords, I support the sentiment of this amendment, but if I had drafted it myself I would have inserted the words "the views and the responsibilities of any parents or guardians" because the word "views" concerns something which is to be estimated whereas the word "rights" imports something quite different. It would be a mistake to put the word "rights" into the Bill.
	I do not quite agree with my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford. There is a basic difference of view between the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the Government on this matter. I believe it is implicit in what has been said so far that the Government anticipate that the commissioner will always consider the rights and responsibilities and, no doubt, the views of parents in reaching conclusions on various matters.
	Amendment No. 5 is in the name of the noble and learned Lord, the Attorney-General. It provides that,
	"The Commissioner may consider, and make repraesentations to the Assembly about, any matter affecting the rights or welfare of children in Wales".
	As I understand the Government's position, they anticipate and believe that the commissioner, in exercising his right and duty under that paragraph, will pay regard to the strong views that have been expressed by the Government. No doubt the noble and learned Lord can strengthen the statement of views today. I believe that that would meet the fears expressed in debate so far that sufficient emphasis has not been given to family and parents.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, perhaps I may deal with the question raised by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, as to whether, if this amendment were adopted as part of the legislation, there would be a deleterious effect. The answer is plainly yes. The amendment is not pace the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, that the commissioner should have regard to, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said it,
	"shall have particular regard to".
	In other words that is not consonant with the paramountcy of the interests of children in all modern children legislation, not least the Children Act 1989.
	However, I understand that concerns have been expressed and I shall do my best to deal with them. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, to other noble Lords and to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, for what they said. As has been indicated, I wrote on 10th April to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, copying the letter to all those in your Lordships' House who had expressed an interest.
	The whole purpose of the Bill is to extend the commissioner's role as a champion of children's rights and welfare. We do not want that to be diluted. However, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, I say that the commissioner was never intended to interfere in family life. In respect of the questions and concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, I confirm that the commissioner will have no investigative, review or monitoring powers in respect of parents or guardians. That is not part of his work and it is not part of his lawful remit.
	Of course, it may be desirable for him to consider and to make representations to the Assembly about aspects of family life that may affect children's rights or welfare. However, in response to requests made by a number of your Lordships to make the matter plain on the record, I stress that the commissioner will need to take a balanced view of all relevant issues that affect children's rights or welfare that include the rights, views--I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hooson--and responsibilities of parents or guardians.
	In my letter of 10th April I indicated that,
	"the welfare of children is inextricably linked to the role of the family and parents".
	Often they are mutually supportive, but not always, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, pointed out. It is right and proper that the commissioner, in taking a balanced view, will want to consider the weight to be given to the rights, the views and the responsibilities of parents. I am quite confident--I make this statement deliberately--that the commissioner will want to bear in mind the concerns expressed by the noble Lady and other noble Lords who have spoken and indeed I would encourage him to do so.
	In many situations the rights of parents and families and the rights and welfare of children coincide. However, we know that in some circumstances they do not and, sadly, that is why we are discussing this matter. We must not pretend that such differences will never occur. In those cases where there are differences, the Children's Commissioner, given the deliberate purpose of his new office, must consider children's rights and welfare as paramount.
	I point out that the Children in Wales Commissioner Campaign Group, including Children in Wales, has fought hard to secure this Bill and fully supports the Government's position. I hope that I have dealt faithfully with the questions that have been asked, and I hope that I have fulfilled the undertaking that I gave this morning to the noble Baroness and to the noble Lords, Lord Roberts of Conwy and Lord Hooson.

Baroness Young: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy and the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, for the way in which they have spoken about this matter. I believe that they reflect what has been a general concern in the House. Looking again at what the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said in Committee, I believe that he thought there was a need to include a reference to parents.
	I regret that the Government were not willing to redraft the amendment in an acceptable form. I have already indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, that I would certainly choose his form of words--to include the word "views"--if that were acceptable. But I regret that that is now water under the bridge. I put this matter on the record because it is an important issue about which I feel strongly.
	I am grateful to the Attorney-General for what he has said. Tomorrow I shall read Hansard carefully. I am particularly grateful to him for firmly setting out that the commissioner's powers of investigation do not extend to families. That is an important statement. As we have seen the difficulties that can arise with over-zealous social workers and others, it is important that families should have that kind of reassurance. I am also grateful to him for setting out--in a slightly different but I believe a strengthened form of words in his letter--the work of the commissioner.
	I regard those two matters as important because the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said that we are taking for granted the fact that the commissioner will always act in a reasonable manner. The law has to consider what would happen if he were not to do that, which is why one writes in various checks and balances. Of course, I do not anticipate that and I would be upset if that happened, but nevertheless life is full of such difficulties. Following the case of Pepper v. Hart, I know that when people resort to the law, lawyers have to take into account the intention of Parliament when the Bill was passed. Therefore, it is valuable indeed to have the words of the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General on the record in this way.
	As I said, it is not my intention to divide the House on this matter, but it will be valuable to have this debate on the record. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 3 [Review of exercise of functions of Assembly and other persons]:

Lord Williams of Mostyn: moved Amendments Nos. 3 and 4:
	Page 2, line 21, leave out "by the Assembly of any function" and insert "of any function of the Assembly"
	Page 2, line 24, leave out from second "exercise" to end of line 25 and insert "in relation to Wales of any function of any person mentioned in Schedule 2A"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: moved Amendment No. 5:
	After Clause 4, insert the following new clause--
	"ADDITIONAL POWER OF CONSIDERATION AND REPRESENTATION
	(1) After section 75 of the Care Standards Act 2000 (c. 14) insert--
	"75A ADDITIONAL POWER OF CONSIDERATION AND REPRESENTATION
	(1) The Commissioner may consider, and make representations to the Assembly about, any matter affecting the rights or welfare of children in Wales.
	(2) The function of the Commissioner under subsection (1) is exercisable only where he does not have power to consider and make representations about the matter in question by virtue of any other provision of this Act or any other enactment.".
	(2) In section 74 of that Act--
	(a) in subsection (1), after "may" insert ", in connection with the Commissioner's functions under this Part,"; and
	(b) after that subsection insert--
	"(1A) The reference in subsection (1) to functions of the Commissioner does not include a reference to his power to consider and make representations by virtue of section 75A(1)."."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: moved Amendment No. 6:
	After Clause 4, insert the following new clause--
	"EXAMINATION OF CASES
	In section 74(3) of the Care Standards Act 2000 (c. 14) (examination of cases), after paragraph (b) insert ", or
	(c) requiring persons to allow the Commissioner access to institutions which include children to whom this Part applies.""

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, this amendment is similar to the new clause that I proposed in Committee, but I hope that it is more appropriately placed. Section 74 of the Care Standards Act provides for regulations to be made in relation to the commissioner's function of examining particular cases, the types of case that may be examined, the circumstances, the procedure and the publication of reports. Those are the matters covered by the regulations.
	The clause goes on to state that regulations may make provision requiring persons to provide information, explanations or other assistance to the commissioner. I am not sure what is meant by "other assistance" in that context. It may include access to institutions for the purposes of an examination or to determine whether a consequential recommendation has been complied with as stated in the clause. I would have thought that it included access in those limited circumstances. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will give us the Government's view on the matter. However, the amendment that I propose would make it explicit that he has a right of access in such limited circumstances.
	For the avoidance of doubt I suggest that the Government accept the amendment which would limit the commissioner's power of access to the specific purposes of Clause 74. It avoids the Government's main criticism in Committee that it is not the commissioner's function to carry out spot checks on the inspectorate. I understand and accept that view. The amendment simply enables him to ensure that when he examines a case he has all the right facts and when he has reported on it and made recommendations that such recommendations are complied with to his satisfaction. Surely, he will need that power; or the Assembly will need a power to regulate to give him that power. We are providing merely for regulations to be made to that effect, if they are deemed necessary.
	It may be said that the Assembly has not asked for the power. Perhaps it has not considered it in as much detail as we have. I believe that perhaps occasionally we should treat the Assembly as Shakespeare treated his audiences at the Globe and elsewhere; he did not give them what they wanted, he gave them what they had not dreamed of. Perhaps on this occasion the Government will agree that we should give the Assembly what it has not dreamed of. I beg to move.

Baroness Young: My Lords, I support what was said by my noble friend Lord Roberts. I believe that this is another amendment which would add to the Bill without affecting its main principles. One thing I have learnt in public life is that there is never a substitute for a personal visit anywhere to anything. Long ago when I was chairman of a children's committee--it has long since departed and is now part of social services--it was a regular routine between meetings to visit all the children's homes for which I was responsible. It was possible to do that and one did so every month. One understood a little about what was happening.
	In respect of difficult cases, the commissioner might not want to visit again or to look himself or herself, but not to have the right to do so when one wants to is a disadvantage because one is trying to ascertain the facts and the best remedy. The amendment is completely constructive and I hope that it will be acceptable to the Government.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, at an earlier stage of the Bill we on these Benches called for a wider power of access to institutions. I see that the amendment limits that right of access to the examination of a particular case. I see great force in that and I support it.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, asked me about my view of Section 74(3). It is that as it is in the context of the provision of information, explanations or other assistance, that would not include the legal right of the commissioner to demand access.
	I understand the difference of view and perhaps I can briefly set out the Government's view. First, if the commissioner has reason to suspect child abuse, he should inform one of the statutory child protection agencies which have lawful powers of entrance--foremost, the police. Secondly, we need to bear in mind what happened post the Waterhouse report. We also need to bear in mind the Assembly's desired plan for the commissioner.
	Normally, a right of access is given in the context of law enforcement or inspection roles. The commissioner's role is not one of inspection. I agree with the noble Baroness that personal, preferably unannounced, visits are an extremely valuable corrective but that is now the duty of the care standards inspectorate for Wales, which is a different body. When one has a commissioner newly set up, and the care standards inspectorate soon to be in place, one does not want to have a blurring of functions. Certainly the report of the National Assembly for Wales did not envisage the access as one of the commissioner's roles; nor is there anything in the Waterhouse report which suggests that.
	What the Assembly was looking to and what we have provided, and what the Waterhouse recommendations went to and what we have provided, was to put the commissioner's main, primary role as one of strategic overview and monitoring. One ought not to underrate the importance of the establishment of the care standards inspectorate. That will undertake regular checks, for example, of children's homes and will be expected to react quickly to allegations of wrong-doing; for instance, by making urgent, short-notice or unannounced visits.
	If there is an inspection of a children's home, the commissioner may decide to examine a particular case concerning a matter of principle. There is nothing to stop the commissioner requesting a visit should he so wish and it is difficult to see that if the request were made it would be refused. Of course, he could comment on that refusal in any annual report or ad hoc report that he wished, at his own discretion, to make to the Assembly.
	I believe that there is a slight difference of emphasis; I am not sure it is fundamental but there is a difference of approach. The real gap which was identified in the past and spoken of by Sir Ronald Waterhouse in his report is now met by the care standards inspectorate. Furthermore, inspections do not always meet the case. Many of the institutions described in such gloomy detail by Sir Ronald were to my personal knowledge frequently inspected by those who did not know what to look for.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his comments. I am grateful in particular to my noble friend Lady Young and to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for their support.
	It seems curious that regulations may make provisions for requiring persons to provide the commissioner with information or requiring persons who hold, or are accountable for, information to provide the commissioner with explanations or other assistance, but that there is no provision for regulations which would enable the commissioner to check things out on the ground for himself.
	I listened carefully to what the noble and learned Lord said about rights of access and one must balance that as a fact of life against the power of the commissioner to request visits should he feel them to be advisable or necessary. I am not altogether satisfied with the present position, but I do not intend to seek the opinion of the House on this matter.
	I want to express my regret. Without wanting to go into previous arguments which we expressed in a more general context in Committee, in my opinion the commissioner and the Assembly will before long come to us complaining of the absence of this power. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 5 [Further functions of the Commissioner]:

Lord Williams of Mostyn: moved Amendment No. 7:
	Page 5, line 36, at end insert--
	"(b) after that subsection insert--
	"(1A) The proceedings which may be prescribed by virtue of subsection (1)(b) are proceedings relating to--
	(a) the exercise or proposed exercise of a function as mentioned in section 72B(1);
	(b) the provision of services as mentioned in section 78(1)(b) or (c)."; and.
	(c) after subsection (5) insert--
	"(5A) The references in subsections (4) and (5) to functions of the Commissioner do not include a reference to his power to consider and make representations by virtue of section 75A(1)."."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	The Schedule [Persons and arrangements subject to review]:

Lord Williams of Mostyn: moved Amendment No. 8:
	Page 7, line 7, leave out "or county borough" and insert ", county borough council or community".
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Then, Standing Order No. 46 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of this day), Bill read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

House of Commons (Removal of Clergy Disqualification) Bill

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
	Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.--(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee accordingly.
	[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Geddes) in the Chair.]
	Clause 1 [Removal of disqualification of clergy]:

Lord Cope of Berkeley: moved Amendment No. 1:
	Page 1, line 6, leave out "a Lord Spiritual" and insert "the Bishop of a see in the Church of England"

Lord Cope of Berkeley: I made clear at Second Reading of the Bill, as did my noble friend Lord Pilkington, that I disliked the Bill. My noble friend regrets that he cannot be with us as he is indisposed. The Bill makes a dent, admittedly a small one, in the establishment of the Church of England, to which I am attached. However, Church of England clergy have long had open to them a bypass route round the disqualification. The Bill also allows a Roman Catholic priest to stand for Parliament against the canon law of his Church. I am sorry that the Bill is proceeding.
	This particular amendment and those grouped with it propose an extremely minor alteration which would not have much practical effect. At the same time, I should make clear that it is not my intention to pursue our objections to the Bill this afternoon. I beg to move.

Lord Norton of Louth: I fear that I cannot support my noble friend's amendment on this occasion. My attitude to the Bill is determined by my belief that electors should be allowed to choose whomsoever they want to serve them in Parliament. We may not like their choices, but that is a matter for them. Given my belief in freedom of choice, this Bill does not go far enough. This is a reaction to a specific problem rather than a Bill that has been introduced on the basis of considered reflection of obstacles to electors in choosing whomsoever they wish. Other obstacles could have been removed. This should have been a wider-ranging Bill; it does not go far enough.
	Conversely, my noble friend's amendments, which impose restrictions, go too far. There is a case for certain people not standing by reason of the positions they hold, but the categories should be as limited in number as possible. We should start from the position that any individual should be permitted to be a candidate and serve as a Member of Parliament and that a compelling, not plausible, case must be made to forbid a particular category of person from being eligible to sit in the other place. The case for these amendments is not a compelling one. If bishops are to be prevented from standing and being elected to Parliament that should be a matter for the Church itself, not statutory provision. I am in favour of getting rid of statutory obstacles, not retaining them.
	Furthermore, I see two particular problems in respect of the amendments before us. First, bishops serve in this House in a personal, not representative, capacity; they speak for themselves, not the Church of England. That may explain their interesting voting behaviour at certain times. Secondly, if a bishop is elected to another place he will be elected to speak for the electors in a constituency, not the Church of England. As my noble friend touched upon, I believe that the point is an academic one--not that there is anything particularly wrong with academic points--but the principle of freedom of choice is important and should on this occasion be overriding.

Lord Goodhart: I rise to support what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth. He has put the matter extremely accurately and with his characteristic clarity. I entirely agree with him that statutory restrictions on the right to stand for election to Parliament should be limited as far as possible. I understand and accept the fact that those who are already Members of your Lordships' House, because they are Members of Parliament, should not be entitled also to elect other Members of Parliament. Nevertheless, that does not apply to bishops who are not yet Members of your Lordships' House. Although it is unlikely in the extreme that any diocesan bishop would think it appropriate to stand for election to the other place, I believe that that matter should be dealt with by the Church, not statute.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: These amendments would prevent all bishops from sitting in another place. The Bill proposes to bar only those bishops who sit in your Lordships' House as Lords Spiritual. There are 42 Church of England diocesan bishops, of whom 40 could qualify to sit in this House as Lords Spiritual. At any one time only 26 are summoned to be Lords Spiritual. It is those bishops who will be disqualified from membership of the other place as they already have a voice in your Lordships' House. That is broadly in line with the recommendation of the Home Affairs Committee but goes slightly wider.
	Although the Government consider it extremely unlikely that bishops, whether or not Lords Spiritual, would wish to become MPs while performing their duties as bishops, it seems right in principle to relate the disqualification to those who actually have a voice in this House. We consider it right to remove all statutory restrictions, thereby enabling anyone who so wishes to become an MP if elected, save for those bishops who are Lords Spiritual. I repeat that they already have a voice in this House. The other bishops, whether diocesan or suffragan, do not. The Church of England has been consulted specifically on this point and is entirely content with the way in which the Bill is drafted.
	I believe that if a bishop is not a Lord Spiritual but is a member of the Labour Party, Liberal Democrat Party or Conservative Party he should have the right to sit in another place, and the electorate should have the right to exercise its choice in electing that individual as a local Member of Parliament.
	As ever, the noble Lord, Lord Norton, has given the Committee one of his mini tours de force. I always enjoy the noble Lord's constitutional lectures in this Chamber. He makes a case for widening the choice that the electorate can freely exercise. I believe that the noble Lord makes a perfectly respectable case and has chosen an appropriate moment at which to do so. As the noble Lord acknowledges, that is beyond the scope of this Bill. But these matters should be at the forefront of our minds. No doubt during an election campaign it is right and proper to consider how one may properly extend the rights of people who for one reason or another are excluded from standing for Parliament. I pay tribute to the noble Lord for introducing that point at this stage in the proceedings.
	We must resist these amendments. We believe that this discrimination is unfair and unfounded and that the further limitation which the noble Lord, Lord Cope, seeks to introduce is entirely unnecessary.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: I agree with my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth that this matter should have been introduced and debated on the basis of a wider principle than simply one hard case, as it were. As I believe was pointed out at Second Reading by the right reverend Prelate who took part, in this matter the law has developed as a result of hard cases. Being lightly educated myself, I always hesitate to use the word "academic" in relation to a particular argument, in the sense that something is of small interest and not really relevant. That always seems to me to be deeply insulting, particularly to distinguished academics such as my noble friend. I would not have chosen that word, but my noble friend is at greater liberty to use it than I am.
	The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, nearly lost me when he suggested that bishops might stand for one of the parties represented here. That would be even more improper than a bishop standing at all. I should like to think that if he stood at all he would stand as an independent. However, I do not propose to pursue this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 not moved.]
	Clause 1 agreed to.
	Clause 2 agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
	Schedule 1 [Consequential amendments]:
	[Amendments Nos. 5 to 8 not moved.]
	Schedule 1 agreed to.
	Schedule 2 agreed to.
	In the Title:
	[Amendments Nos. 9 to 11 not moved.]
	Title agreed to.
	House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.
	Then, Standing Order No. 46 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of this day), Bill read a third time, and passed.

Private Security Industry Bill [H.L.]

Returned from the Commons agreed to with a privilege amendment; the amendment considered and agreed to.
	House adjourned at twenty-six minutes before six o'clock.